Sign up for POLITICO Magazine's weekly email: The Friday Cover

The Gaza War Was Pointless. Here’s How to Make Sure It Never Happens Again.

By MATTHEW DUSS

August 06, 2014

The Gaza war – what was it good for, exactly? The conflict now seems to be winding down following the commencement of a 72-hour ceasefire Tuesday, leaving behind a toll of death and destruction. As of this writing, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are huddled in Cairo to try to work out a longer-term truce, so it’s time to consider how to avoid another rerun in two years.

Most Popular

Lost amid the blood and fire is the fact that both sides have immediate goals that are legitimate. For Israel, it’s ending rocket fire and destroying the dozens of Hamas tunnels intended to facilitate attacks on Israeli civilians. For Hamas, it’s easing the blockade that has suffocated Gaza’s population and kept it in a perpetual state of economic and humanitarian crisis, with some 80 percent of Gazans reliant on international aid.

There’s a growing consensus that a way forward is for the Palestinian Authority (PA), led by moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to take control of the Rafah crossing on the Egypt-Gaza border, and, eventually, to assert broader security control under the auspices of the Hamas-Fatah unity government created in early June. Hamas forcibly ejected the PA’s security forces in a short but violent 2007 civil war, and there have been several failed attempts at reconciliation since then.

Unfortunately, bringing the PA back to Gaza is an option that could and should have been looked at more seriously before this latest round of violence, which has claimed some 1,800 Palestinian lives, at least half of them civilians. Rather than agree to work with the Palestinian unity government, as did the United States, the European Union and others, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rejected it.

And yet it’s Netanyahu who is outraged about Western criticism of his ill-advised war. Over the weekend, as an earlier cease-fire broke down, he reportedly told U.S. officials “not to ever second-guess me again” on Hamas. Leaving aside the fact that $3 billion a year in aid should probably buy the United States the right to second-guess our client whenever we want, Netanyahu’s behavior over the past few years – whether it is building settlements that undermine the prospects for peace or shouting his vigorous opposition even to a sensible nuclear deal with Iran – indicates someone who deserves to be second-guessed, and loudly.

This is very much the case with Netanyahu’s response to the Palestinian unity government. In a press conference on Wednesday, Netanyahu indicated that he would be open to the possibility of the PA taking control of the Rafah crossing. It’s a tragedy that this option wasn’t explored earlier. At the time the unity government was announced, Israeli security analysts Kobi Michael and Udi Dekel recommended that Israel take the opportunity to empower the PA by “focus[ing] on rebuilding and developing the Gaza Strip, with the PA in charge of the Gaza Strip crossings” – precisely what’s being considered now, 1800 deaths later. Maybe the United States should have second-guessed Netanyahu earlier, and more forcefully, on this point.

It’s important to remember that Hamas came into the unity agreement on terms very favorable to its Fatah rivals, seeing it as the only option to reverse the militant group’s growing regional isolation. The United States agreed to work with the proposed government because it met the international community’s conditions—recognize Israel, honor past agreements, end the violence—conditions, it’s worth noting, that the current Israeli government does not meet with respect to the Palestinians.